ISSN (print):2182-7796, ISSN (online):2182-7788, ISSN (cd-rom):2182-780X
Available online at www.sciencesphere.org/ijispm
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 25 ►
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self-service
technology adoption in a corporate context
Eoghan Considine
College of Engineering & Informatics
National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland
www.shortbio.org/[email protected]
Kathryn Cormican
College of Engineering & Informatics
National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland
www.shortbio.org/[email protected]
Abstract:
The adoption of self-service technology (SST) has been well researched in consumer contexts but, despite the existing
body of work, few studies have investigated in detail the specific determinants for user satisfaction in a corporate
context. This study attempts to address this deficit. The goal of our work is to examine employees’ perception of SST.
To do this, four dimensions of the SSTQUAL quality scale (namely (a) functionality; (b) security; (c) design and (d)
customization) were adapted to collect data from 182 knowledge workers in a financial services multi-national
organization. The findings lead to the following insights. First respondents believe that SSTs can perform the task
required in a timely and straightforward manner. They also feel that transactions are safe and secure. However, we
learned that, although essential to user satisfaction, respondents have concerns regarding the design and customization
of the technology. They believe that the technology employed is not user centric. Furthermore, respondents are not
pleased with the layouts or aesthetics of the technology and they feel that the features are not personalized for their
specific requirements. The study is important for many reasons. First, it expands the discussion on SST adoption by
focusing on the corporate context thus contributing to the body of knowledge in the domain. Second, it captures and
analyses real world empirical data and helps bridge the gap between theory and practice. Finally, the findings can help
service providers to create effective user driven solutions.
Keywords: self-service technologies; technology adoption; satisfaction; SSTQUAL quality scale.
DOI: 10.12821/ijispm050202
Manuscript received: 28 February 2017
Manuscript accepted: 29 May 2017
Copyr ight © 2017, SciKA. General permission to republish in pr int or electronic forms, but not for profit , a ll or part of this mater ial is granted, provided that the
Internat ional Journal o f Informat ion Systems and Pro ject Management copyr ight notice is given and that reference made to the publicat ion, to its date of issue, and to
the fact that reprint ing pr ivileges w ere granted by permiss ion o f SciKA - Associat ion for Promotion and Disseminat ion o f Scient ific Knowledge.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 26 ►
1. Introduction: The rise of the prosumer
It is widely accepted that recent technological advancements have led to enhanced business practices. This impact is
especially profound in the service based industry where providers are continuously introducing innovative methods to
deliver service options to their clients. Increasingly service providers are employing technology based solutions to
encourage, and oftentimes to compel, consumers to use their services autonomously.
Consumers are now taking more control of their service consumption. This is evident in many industries such banking
(e.g. on-line payments and account management); retail (e.g. self-scanning tills) and airline (e.g. on-line booking and
check in). Toffler [1], a founding scholar on the self-service concept, coined the term “prosumer” which means
“production by consumers” to express the blurring of boundaries between the producer and the consumer. According to
Prahalad and Ramaswamy [2], prosumers are “co-creators of value” as they not only engage with but also control the
service delivery process to meet their specific needs. To this end, we notice that interpersonal or face to face
interactions between providers and consumers are being replaced with self-service technologies (SSTs). Self-service
technologies, or automated service delivery systems, enables customers to interact with technology to produce their own
outcome independent of human involvement (e.g. service representative) [3], [4].
Dabholkar and Richard [5] contend that self-service technologies can be categorized into two cohorts. The first cohort
refers to “on-site” options which may include technologies such as self-scanning in retail stores and libraries; touch
screens in airports and information kiosks in tourist information outlets. The second cohort refers to “off-site” options
which may include technologies such as online banking and shopping on the Internet.
Previous research has shown that the adoption of self-service technology has been studied from many perspectives in
many different contexts. For example, recent research has been conducted in contexts such as banking [6], [7],
television [8], air travel [9] and hospitality [10]. We observe that all these studies have focused on SST adoption in
consumer markets. However, knowledge workers in general and technology based knowledge workers increasingly use
self-service technology (SST) within their organizations to obtain services. Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge,
little attention has been paid to understanding SST adoption in the business or corporate context. There is a dearth of
empirical studies in this domain that clearly should be addressed. Thus, to close this gap our research aims to ascertain
whether the move towards service capabilities, based on a self-service technology approach caters for technology
knowledge workers’ evolving demands. Specifically, we aim to assess the level of satisfaction with an organizations
SST in a business context. To do this our study adapted the SSTQUAL measurement scale developed by Lin and Hsieh
[11] which is acknowledged as the de-facto SST quality measurement scale [6], [12]. We adapt four constructs namely
(a) functionality, (b) security, (c) design and (d) customization as these were most relevant to our requirements and
context. The target group for this study included approximately 400 knowledge workers comprising software engineers,
software quality assurance engineers, system administrators, software architects and technical managers. The group was
geographically distributed across multisite boundaries. Data was collected from 182 people in January and February
2015 and key findings of our analysis are presented in this paper.
This study is important to both academics and to practitioners. Our findings advance theory in an important way. To this
end, we answer calls for research by extending the discussion on SST and analyzing empirical data in a real world
corporate context. Additionally, our findings have interesting implications for service practitioners. We expect that the
results of our analysis will help practitioners with their decision on whether to invest in SST as an alternative to service
representative services. These findings can also provide valuable insights to designers of such technologies.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 27 ►
2. Understanding self-service technologies
2.1 Cognate studies
The literature on SST is rather varied. A review of the extant literature reveals that many empirical studies have focused
on consumers’ attitude towards SST. Most notably Dabholkar and Richard’s [5] seminal study examined the
moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors on the relationships within an attitudinal model for SSTs.
Collier et al.’s [13] work explored the situational influences on customers' self-service technology decisions. Other
studies have examined customer preferences between the use of service representatives and SSTs [14], [15], [16], [17].
A considerable part of the literature on SSTs examines determinants of SST adoption and use. Previous research has
shown that consumer adoption and continuance behavior is influenced by different factors [18]. In particular, Curran et
al. [19] examined the factors that influence consumer attitudes toward, and adoption of, self‐service technologies
(SSTs). Curran and Meuter [20] also examined self‐service technology adoption. Meuter et al. [21] explored the
influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. Elliott et al. [22]
investigated consumers’ intentions to use self-scanning technology while Eriksson and Nilsson [23] studied the
determinants of the continued use of self-service technology. Lee and Allaway’s [4] work focused on the effects of
personal control on adoption of self‐service technologies. This study investigates whether the provision of increased
consumer control can reduce their perceived risk, enhance the perceived value of the SST, and induce greater adoption
intention associated with a technology. In addition, there have been some empirical studies that examined customer
satisfaction with SSTs. For example, Meurer et al. [3] investigated the sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with
SSTs. Whilst Yen [24] examined the attributes important for consumer satisfaction with Internet-based self-service
technology.
2.2 Drivers and benefits
Research has shown that advancements in technology coupled with increased labour costs and are key drivers for
service organizations to offer SST to consumers [5], [20], [25]. Arguably the biggest motivation for the creation of SST
is the elimination of the service representative which enables a cost-effective mechanism for organizations to deliver
services to consumers anytime anywhere [4], [26]. An analysis of the extant literature shows that although fixed costs
are high in the development process there are many benefits to using SST from the perspective of the service provider
and also the consumer. These benefits are summarised in table 1. As you can see previous research studies have found
that SST adoption has been proven to improve operations, decrease costs and increase efficiencies for the service
provider. Much of the benefits attributed to the consumer centre around the customer experience. Indeed, prior research
has found that some consumers may prefer to use SST rather than engaging with a service representative because they
find the system easy to use, or because it allows them to avoid interaction with people [3].
However, it must be acknowledged that the shift towards SST undoubtedly requires increased effort on the part of
the customer. For example, Lee and Alloway [4] ascertain that the replacement of human service representatives
by a technology usually requires more customer participation and responsibility in the produ ction of the service.
Arguably some customers will consider the costs of learning the new technology and the behavioural changes required
to be too great to be worthwhile [27]. Many research studies have found that consumers still prefer the consumer-to-
representative interaction over SSTs. For example, Beatson et al. [17] empirically examined the impact of SST on
customer satisfaction by assessing both SST attributes and personal service attributes in a hotel context. The results of
the study show that consumers prefer the consumer-to-representative interaction over self-service technology. Indeed,
Kokkinou and Cranage [28] demonstrated that under certain conditions, the introduction of SST does not provide
satisfaction for consumers. Having more choice for interaction can lead to increased anxiety and complexity for both
the consumer and producer over traditional systems [29]. Research into passenger behaviour at Spanish airports
examined the factors that influence a passenger’s decision to use an SST option [29]. These findings show that
demographics have an impact on consumer behaviour and that younger consumers preferred SST options over a
traditional service representative interaction at airports [29]. Researchers have also studied the behavioural intentions of
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 28 ►
consumers where they were forced to use SST. Results indicate that technology anxiety and technology trust directly
affect consumer behaviour and therefore consumer satisfaction [30]. These findings show that, although at times
conflicting, consumers feel less anxious and trust organizations more when choice of service options are offered.
Table 1. Benefits to self-service technologies
Stakeholder Benefit Empirical study
Service provider Greater control over the service delivery Meuter et al. [3]
Enables standardized service delivery Curran and Meuter [20]; Hsieh et al. [31]
Smooths demand fluctuations Curran et al. [19]
Expands the options for delivery Curran and Meuter [20]
Reduces labor costs Meuter et al. [3]; Curran and Meuter [20]; Guthridge [25]
Removes service personnel from routine tasks Lee and Alloway [4]
Consumer Improved customer experience Guthridge, [25]
Ease of use Meuter et al. [3]; Dabholkar [32]
Improves convenience Meuter et al. [3]; Kauffman and Lally [33] ; Bitner et al.[34]
Increased customization Meuter et al. [3]
Reduced waiting time Meuter et al. [3]; Bitner et al.[34]
Avoids interaction with employees Bitner et al. [34]; Meuter et al. [3]; Dabholkar[32]
Reduced anxiety Bitner et al. [34]
Improved enjoyment Dabholkar [32]
It is clear that SSTs must be accepted by consumers in order to succeed. To this end the strategies used to encourage
consumers to embrace these technologies must address the real needs of the user and must consider the perceived
benefits in the minds of the consumer [20]. Therefore, it is imperative that we understand how to best design, develop
and deploy new SSTs in order to increase the probability of user acceptance. Prior research indicates that SST users
were satisfied when a specific need was met (i.e. a need for cash was satisfied by an ATM machine), the SST was better
than an alternative service option (i.e. the SST was easy to use, the consumer wanted to avoid service personnel, the
SST saved them time, the SST was available when they wanted it, the SST provided what they wanted, the SST saved
them money) and the SST did its job. Technology failure, process failure, poor design or customer driven failures were
all classified as dissatisfying incidents for consumers [3].
3. Measurement scales for consumer-to-technology interactions
Considering the previous discussion, a cogent development plan should incorporate key determinants of satisfaction and
ensure they are designed in an effective way. However, the design and implementation of SST is not straightforward
since users often present conflicting demands on a system. Thus, in this section, we present an overview of the
measurement scales pertaining to the salient determinants of SST design which will be used to elucidate our research
question.
A number of measurement scales exist which can be used to measure specific service dimensions. Most notably
SERVQUAL measures consumer-to-service-representative quality [35]. The technology assessment model (TAM)
measures the potential drivers and inhibitors of technology acceptance [36]. Work has been conducted in the area of
technology readiness (TR) to assess consumer readiness to adopt new technology [37]. Lin and Hsieh’s SSTQUAL
scale measures the service quality of a SST [11]. Many researchers have adopted SSTQUAL and it is acknowledged to
be the foremost scale for measuring the quality of consumer-to-technology interactions [7], [12].
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 29 ►
A synthesis of the extant literature reveals similar or cognate studies that have been conducted in this space. For
example, Oh et al. [10] studied tourist adoption and intention to use SST in a resort hotel context citing extrinsic
motivations as a key motivator to adoption. This study developed a conceptual framework using dimensions of
perceived ease-of-use, privacy, autonomy and efficiency coupled with the human desire for interaction. The scale used,
based on TAM, found that these dimensions most positively affected customer adoption of SST in a hotel context. Choi
and Park’s [9] study investigated the adoption of a smart entry service SST in an airport context. An alternative model
for testing SST service quality was developed to assess the intention to use i.e. functionality, security, perceived
enjoyment, perceived ease-of-us and perceived usefulness. Jang and Noh’s [8] work examined SST service quality in
the internet protocol television (IPTV) sector. These researchers created a model extending the TAM scale. This study
examined intention to use of SST by examining the correlation between functionality (including ease-of-use), design,
enjoyment and security. The study concluded that service quality had an influence on perceived usefulness, ease of use
and enjoyment. All three of these studies used a version or an extended version of TAM with some including or
excluding dimensions of the SSTQUAL. Table 2 attempts to compare and contrast the various constructs used in each
of these studies relative to the SSTQUAL scale [11] and to each other. We can see that Oh et al. [10] excluded
constructs such as enjoyment, security, assurance, design, convenience and customization. Choi and Park [9] excluded
assurance, design, convenience and customization while Jang and Noh [8] excluded assurance, convenience and
customization. We note that Radomir and Nistor [6] used all the SSTQUAL constructs in their study.
Table 2. Comparative analysis of constructs used to measure service quality in cognate studies
Dimension Description Lin and
Hsieh [11]
Oh et al.
[10]
Choi and
Park [9]
Jang and
Noh [8]
Radomir and
Nistor [6]
Functionality Represents functional aspects of SST including reliability,
perceived ease of use and
responsiveness.
Enjoyment Tests perceptions of perceived
enjoyment during SST delivery
and the outcomes of use.
-
Security/Privacy Examines perceived security
including fraud and general safety
and loss of personal data.
-
Assurance Portrays the confidence of the
consumer in the competence of
the SST provider.
- - -
Design Tests the overall design of the
SST service system. - -
Convenience How accessible and convenient to use is the SST service.
- - -
Customization Tests how customizable the SST
is and if it can be adapted to meet the individual customers’ needs
and historic transactions.
- - -
4. Research methodology
A quantitative data collection method following the positivist approach was chosen for this study as it was deemed the
most suitable mechanism to collect the required data. In this instance, the research problem is well-defined, and the
dependent and independent variables are clearly articulated therefore empirical analysis is warranted. This approach
allows for large amounts of data to be collected within a short period of time. According to Johnson and Harris [38] this
method has a high level of reliability and consistency and it is easily replicated, provided the researcher uses a
systematic research approach. Hildreth [39] contends that the users of a system are the best evaluators of that system.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 30 ►
Therefore, only technology based employees were targeted for this study. 400 Knowledge workers employed in a large
multi-national financial services organization were included in the data collection process. The sample comprised
software engineers, software quality assurance engineers, system administrators, software architects and technical
managers. Overhead functions such as finance, human resources and administration staff were deemed out of scope and
consequently excluded. The sample was geographically distributed across multisite boundaries.
As replication logic was deemed important to the data collection process, a purposive, non-probability strategy was
used to select the sample elements. This ensured that rich and meaningful data was collected. Tansey [40] contents that
a non-probability sample is effective when, as in this study, the research is exploring what is occurring while Patton
[41] suggests that a purposive sample “has a logic and power - and provides rich information”. Through the process of
snowballing or “response cascading” [42], we encouraged first contact respondents to invite their relevant colleagues to
participate in the study.
The survey which adapted the original SSTQUAL scale was developed following best practice [43] to examine
participant’s perception of SST. The SSTQUAL scale comprises 20 quality items categorized into 7 dimensions
including functionality, security, design, enjoyment, assurance and customization. This study focused on 4 dimensions
of the scale (e.g. functionality, security, design and customization), as they are most appropriate to measure SST service
quality in a business context. The remaining 3 dimensions, enjoyment, assurance and convenience are considered out of
scope for this study because SST use in a corporate context is mandatory and so these dimensions are irrelevant. A
seven point Likert scale, codified from 0 through 6, containing bipolar ranges from strongly disagree to strongly agree
was used to measure negative or positive responses to statements (see table 3). Every attempt was made to ensure
internal validity (i.e. that the research is done right and is free from bias). The instrument was pre-tested (n=3) and
piloted (n=8) in order to establish its face validity, accuracy and acceptability. The instrument was revised and amended
following feedback from this activity. The final questionnaire was distributed using email and included a blog post to
educate participants on the nature of the research. Anonymity and confidentiality was assured. The survey was open for
one month straddling January and February 2015. A reminder email was sent to direct contacts on day ten. The overall
response rate was 45.5% (n = 182).
Table 3. Likert Scale and Kruskal-Wallis
Likert Code Likert Scale Kruskal-Wallis*
0 Strongly Disagree Disagree
1 Disagree Disagree
2 Somewhat Disagree Disagree
3 Neutral Neither Agree or Disagree
4 Somewhat Agree Agree
5 Agree Agree
6 Strongly Agree Agree
*The distribution of higher and lower responses using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric technique
5. Results
5.1 Sample and rater consistency
In total 182 responses to the questionnaire was received of which 69% came from male respondent and 31% came from
female. The age profile of respondents is illustrated in table 4.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 31 ►
Table 4. Age profile of sample
Age Count Percent
18-29 31 17%
30-39 68 37%
40-49 53 29%
50-59 25 14%
60 and over 5 3%
182 100%
Cronbach’s α (alpha) was used to assess the internal reliability, consistency and therefore trustworthiness of the data for
each construct namely functionality, security, design and customization (see table 5). Overall the results indicate very
good reliability according to best practice [44], [45].
Table 5. Rater consistency
Functionality Security Design Customization
Cronbach’s α* 0.91782 0.684036 0.8264138 0.83194
*Good Reliability is measured > 0.8
*Acceptable Reliability is measured > 0.6
5.2 Functionality
Four items from the extended SSTQUAL scale were adapted and used to examine the functionality of the SST in the
case organization. These were:
I can get my service done with the organization’s SST in a short time;
SSTs already in place at the organization are simple and easy to use;
Using the organization’s SST requires little effort;
I can get my service done smoothly with the organization’s SST.
A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 where 0 is “strongly disagree” and 6 is “strongly agree” was used to assess these
items. The responses, illustrated in table 6 indicate a mean within the central tendency while more interestingly a
median and mode above the central tendency. The standard deviation is 1.7 which indicates a good variation in
responses.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics for functionality
Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation
3.359341 4 4 1.704681
Table 7 summarizes the aggregated responses for all the items relating to functionality. The data indicates that 461 or
50.66% of responses agreed with the items to measure the level of functionality of the organizations SSTs. We found
that in our sample respondents believe that SSTs in the organizations can help them get their services completed in a
short time they are easy to use and little effort is required to operate the technology. We also learned that while the
sample group is positive in general to the functionality of SSTs in the organization, they do not agree that the
experience is error-free.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 32 ►
Table 7. Aggregated responses for all the items relating to functionality
Response Count Percent
Disagree 285 31.21%
Neither Agree or Disagree 155 0.13%
Agree 461 50.66%
Total 910 100%
5.3 Security
Two items from the extended SSTQUAL scale were adapted and used to address the level of security of the
organization’s SSTs. The questions posed on the survey to capture this data are as follows:
I feel that my transactions with the organization SST are safe;
A clear privacy policy is stated when I use the organization SST.
A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 where 0 is “strongly disagree” and 6 is “strongly agree” was used to assess these
items. The responses indicate a mean above the central tendency while the median and mode are also above the central
tendency (see table 8). The standard deviation is 1.6 which indicates a good variation in responses.
Table 8. Descriptive statistics for security
Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation
4.0164835 4 5 1.6056899
The aggregated data of responses for security related items indicate that 229 or 62.91% of responses were positive
showing overall agreement with questions dealing with the security (see table 9). In particular, we found that our
sample strongly believes that the level of safety when executing transactions with SST within the organization is high
(74%). However, only 52% of respondents agree that the organisation has clear policies in place for using SSTs.
Table 9. Aggregated data of responses for security
Response Count Percent
Disagree 55 15.11%
Neither Agree or Disagree 80 21.98%
Agree 229 62.91%
Total 364 100%
5.4 Design
Two questions from the original SSTQUAL scale were adapted and used to assess the nature of design for the
organization’s SSTs. There are:
The layout of the organization SSTs are aesthetically appealing;
The organization’s SSTs appears to use up-to-date technology.
A Likert scale ranging from 0 to 6 where 0 is “strongly disagree” and 6 is “strongly agree” was used to assess these
items. The responses, illustrated in table 10 indicate a mean below the central tendency while the median and mode are
also neutral indicating neither a positive or negative response. The standard deviation was 1.44 which indicates a good
variation in responses.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 33 ►
Table 10. Descriptive statistics for design
Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation
3.359341 4 4 1.704681
Table 11 summarizes the aggregated responses for all the items relating to design. This illustrates that only 176 or
48.35% of respondents agreed with the questions relating to the design construct. This is somewhat lower than the
scores for the functionality (50.66%) and security (62.91%) constructs. The aggregation of negative (22.53%) and
neutral distributions (29.12%) also exceeds the positive distribution (48.35%). This indicates that the sample group has
concerns with the design of SSTs within the organization. We found that only 42% of respondents are happy with the
layouts and the aesthetics of the organization’s SST and 55% of respondents believe that the organization’s SSTs
employ up to date technology.
Table 11. Aggregated responses for all the items relating to design
Response Count Percent
Disagree 82 22.53%
Neither Agree or Disagree 106 29.12%
Agree 176 48.35%
Total 364 100%
5.5 Customization
Three questions were adapted from the SSTQUAL scale and used to assess customization. They are:
The organization’s SST understands my specific needs;
The organization’s unit SST has my best interests at heart;
The organization’s SST has features that are personalized for me.
These questions aimed to assess respondents’ attitudes towards user centered design, and personalization. The
responses, illustrated in table 12, indicate a mean below the central tendency with the median and mode also below the
central tendency. The standard deviation was 1.56, which indicates a good variation in responses.
Table 12. Descriptive statistics for customization
Mean Median Mode Standard Deviation
3.245421 3 3 1.565168
The aggregated data of responses (see table 13) indicates that 239 or 43.77% of responses were in agreement with the
questions relating to customization. This result is lower than the functionality (50.66%), security (62.91) and design
(48.35%) scores. The aggregation of negative (28.39%) and neutral distributions (27.84%) also exceeds the positive
distribution (43.77%). This suggests that the sample does not agree that the nature of customization provided by SSTs is
adequate within the case organization.
Table 13. Aggregated responses for all the items relating to customization
Response Count Percent
Disagree 155 28.39%
Neither Agree or Disagree 152 27.84%
Agree 239 43.77%
Total 364 100%
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 34 ►
5.6 Correlation analysis
A correlation analysis among functionality, security, design, customization of organization’s SSTs, and user satisfaction
was conducted in this research. Accordingly, we calculated the mean values of functionality, security, design, and
customization for each respondent and then summed these averages to get the value for user satisfaction. Then, we
employed a one-tailed test as it helps to predict whether a relationship exists and if so it can help us to determine the
direction of that relationship [46]. The results of our correlation analysis are presented below (see table 14).
Table 14. Results of correlation analysis
Constructs Functionality Security Design Customization Uses’ satisfaction
Functionality N/A
Security 0.57** N/A
Design 0.66** 0.48** N/A
Customization 0.63** 0.62** 0.72** N/A
User satisfaction 0.86** 0.79** 0.85** 0.88** N/A
Note: Control variable: gender and age.
**p<.01
Here we find that these variables (functionality, security, design, and customization) have positive associations with
user satisfaction. The strongest correlation exits between customization of the organization’s SSTs and users’
satisfaction (r = .88, p < .01), while the weakest correlation lies in security (r = .79, p < .01). It means that for
respondents in our survey, customization, functionality and design of SSTs are very important.
6. Discussion
Lin and Hsieh [11] contend that the delivery of high quality services is a primary source of competitive advantage for
contemporary organizations. In recent years, we have witnessed a shift from the use of personal service representatives
towards self-service technology adoption in many contexts. To date there have been many empirical investigations of
SST adoption in the consumer market but there is a dearth of studies in the corporate or business environment. Given
that the extant literature has focused almost exclusively on consumers, there is much to be learned about how
employees engage with technology-based self-service delivery options in a corporate context. As self-service
technology (SST) adoption is lauded to help organizations to control costs and improve efficiencies it makes sense to
advance our understanding of how the service quality is perceived by the end users. SST service quality can be
measured by examining many dimensions including functionality, enjoyment, security, assurance, design,
customization and convenience [19], [34]. However, four key dimensions namely (a) functionality; (b) security; (c)
design and (d) customization are the most relevant to the business environment. Consequently, the focus of our research
is to empirically assess how employees in a corporate context perceive SSTs in terms of these service quality
dimensions.
We found that in our sample, respondents believe that SSTs in their specific organization can help them get their
services completed in a short time; they are easy to use and little effort is required to operate the technology. However,
respondents do not believe that the experience is error-free. We learned that the respondents in our sample strongly
believe that the level of security when executing transactions with SST within the organization is high. In other words,
they are confident that their transactions are safe and secure. However, only half of respondents agree that the
organization has clear policies in place for using SSTs which suggests that this issue needs to be addressed. The
introduction of SSTs changes the way services are introduced and consequently this has an impact on user behaviour. In
light of this, it seems prudent that organizations should support this change with clear operating procedures.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 35 ►
The study highlighted an issue with the design and customization of the SSTs in the organization. We found that
customization, functionality and design of SSTs are critical to user satisfaction. This finding supports the work
conducted by Hillegersberg and Koenen [47] who examined the reasons for the relatively slow adoption of group based
decision support systems and concluded that user interface design was essential for user acceptance and should be
prioritized. Wolfinbarger and Gilly [48] also report that design is the most important facet of SST quality albeit in the
consumer context. They found that design has the strongest influence on customers’ overall quality perceptions and
behavioural intentions. However, we find that user centered design and customization is an issue for the respondents of
our study. We found that the level of agreement with items that measured user centred design, and personalization of
the organizations SST was not high. In fact, this construct received the lowest scores of all. This suggests that service
providers must place extra emphasis on these dimensions in order to ensure that SSTs are user centric.
Although our findings broadly support those of cognate studies [11], [6] there is still a great deal unknown about self-
service technology in general and user satisfaction in particular. While this research was successful at increasing our
understanding of the relationship between SST and user satisfaction in a corporate context, it is also imperative to
acknowledge that there are many external factors that can influence a user’s perception of a system [49]. Generic SST
quality measurement, such as SSTQUAL, simply does not transcend industries and contexts. What is critical to SST
adoption in finance is not critical to adoption in retail, finance or technology. Contextual factors must be carefully
assessed before implementing SST; there can be savings for both organizations and consumers of the SST but careful
analysis of the desirability and feasibility of the SST should be assessed before implementation.
7. Conclusion
This study has shown that the replacement of service capabilities with SST is broadly acceptable to technology based
knowledge workers. We found that functionality, design and customization are strongly associated with user
satisfaction. Our sample seemed happy with the levels of functionality and security in the case organization’s SSTs.
However, the study highlighted an issue with the design and customization of the SSTs in the organization. These
results accentuate the need for service providers to place extra emphasis on these dimensions. In other words, future
technologies must be more user-centric.
It is clear from the results of this study, when compared to previous studies, that contextual or environmental factors
influence SST adoption. Generic SST quality measurement, such as SSTQUAL, simply does not transcend all industries
and contexts. What is critical to SST adoption in finance is not critical to adoption in retail, finance or technology.
While there are some service dimensions that should be considered baseline factors to adoption, it is clear that some
service dimensions are more important than others depending on the specific culture and environment.
In light of this, future research might expand beyond the single context of the current research to multiple
contexts. An extension of the sample is required to further improve the quality of results. Future research should
consider broadening the scope to include more organizations within the knowledge worker or technology sector. Data
from different settings, and indeed national contexts, may also be used to ensure external validity of the measures
and the generalizability of the findings in this study. This study, like previous studies, employed deductive reasoning
methods assuming no cultural differences existed between environments. Future studies might consider inductive
methods in an attempt to isolate some of these issues. Finally, it is important to highlight that SST quality measurement
is not the only factor relevant to adoption of SST within the business context. Orchestration of SST, or the streamlining
and integration of applications, is also important to consider.
References
[1] A.Toffler, The third wave, New York, USA: Bantam books, 1980.
[2] C. K. Prahalad, and V. Ramaswamy, “Co-opting customer competence,” Harvard business review, vol. 78, no. 1,
pp. 79-90, Jan, 2000.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 36 ►
[3] M. L. Meuter, A. L. Ostrom, R. I. Roundtree, and M. J. Bitner, “Self-service technologies: understanding customer
satisfaction with technology-based service encounters,” Journal of marketing, vol. 64, no. 3, pp. 50-64, Jul, 2000.
[4] J. Lee, and A. Allaway, “Effects of personal control on adoption of self-service technology innovations,” Journal of
Services Marketing, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 553-572, Nov, 2002.
[5] P. A. Dabholkar, and P. B. Richard, “An attitudinal model of technology-based self-service: moderating effects of
consumer traits and situational factors,” Journal of the academy of marketing science, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 184-201, Jul,
2002.
[6] L. Radomir, and C. V. Nistor, “High-educated consumer perceptions of service quality: An assessment of the
SSTQUAL scale in the Romanian banking industry,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 3, pp. 858-864, Jan, 2012.
[7] L. Radomir, and C. V. Nistor, “Comparing the original and the revised SSTQUAL scale among high-educated
consumers in Romania,” Procedia Economics and Finance, vol. 15, pp. 926-934, Jan, 2014.
[8] H. Y. Jang, and M. J. Noh, “Customer acceptance of IPTV service quality,” International Journal of Information
Management, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 582-592, Dec, 2011.
[9] J. H. Choi, and J. W. Park, “Investigating the factors influencing the usage of smart entry service: Incheon
International Airport case study,” International Business Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 74, Jan, 2014.
[10] H. Oh, M. Jeong, and S. Baloglu, “Tourists adoption of self-service technologies at resort hotels,” Journal of
Business Research, vol. 66, no. 6, pp. 692-699, Jan, 2013.
[11] J. S. Lin, and P. L. Hsieh, “Assessing the self-service technology encounters: Development and validation of
SSTQUAL scale,” Journal of Retailing, vol. 87, no. 2, pp.194-206, Jun. 2011.
[12] F. D. Orel, and A. Kara, “Supermarket self-checkout service quality, customer satisfaction, and loyalty: Empirical
evidence from an emerging market,” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 118-129, Mar,
2014.
[13] J. E. Collier, R. S. Moore, A. Horky, and M. L. Moore, “Why the little things matter: Exploring situational
influences on customers' self-service technology decisions,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 703-710,
Mar, 2015.
[14] C. H. Ko, “Exploring how hotel guests choose self-service technologies over service staff,” International Journal
of Organizational Innovation, vol. 9, no.2, pp. 16B, Jan, 2017.
[15] F. Simon and J. C. Usunier, “Cognitive, demographic, and situational determinants of service customer preference
for personnel-in-contact over self-service technology,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 24, no. 2,
pp. 163–173, June 2007.
[16] J. Ganesh, M. J. Arnold, and K. E. Reynolds, “Understanding the customer base of service providers: an
examination of the differences between switchers and stayers,” Journal of marketing, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 65-87, Jul,
2000.
[17] A. Beatson, L. V. Coote, and J. M. Rudd, “Determining consumer satisfaction and commitment through self-
service technology and personal service usage,” Journal of Marketing Management, vol. 22, no. 7-8, pp. 835-882, Aug,
2006.
[18] C. Wang, J. Harris, and P. G. Patterson, “Customer choice of self-service technology: the roles of situational
influences and past experience,” Journal of Service Management, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 54-78, Mar, 2012.
[19] J.M. Curran, M.L. Meuter, and C. F. Surprenant, “Intentions to use self-service technologies: a confluence of
multiple attitudes,” Journal of Service Research, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 209-24, Feb, 2003.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 37 ►
[20] J.M. Curran, and M.L, Meuter, “Self-service technology adoption: comparing three technologies,” Journal of
Services Marketing, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 103-13, Mar 2005.
[21] M. L. Meuter, A. L. Ostromb, M. J. Bitnerb, and R. Roundtreec, “The influence of technology anxiety on
consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 56, no. 11, pp. 899-
906, Nov, 2003.
[22] K. M. Elliott, M. C. Hall, and J. G. Meng, “Consumers' intention to use self-scanning technology: the role of
technology readiness and perceptions toward self-service technology,” Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, vol. 17,
no. 1, pp. 129, Jan 2013.
[23] K. Eriksson, and D. Nilsson, “Determinants of the continued use of self-service technology: The case of Internet
banking,” Technovation, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 159-67, Apr, 2007.
[24] H. R. Yen, “An attribute-based model of quality satisfaction for internet self-service technology,” The Service
Industries Journal, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 641-59, Jul, 2005.
[25] G. Guthridge, 2014, Driving self-service adoption [Online]. Available at: http://www.accenture.com/us-
en/blogs/accenture-u-blog-utilities-forum/archive/2014/02/28/driving-self-service-adoption.aspx
[26] L. F. Cunningham, C. E. Young, and J. Gerlach, (2009), “A comparison of consumer view of traditional services
and self-service technologies,” Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 11-23, 2009
[27] H. Gatignon, and T. S. Robertson, “Innovative decision processes,” Handbook of consumer behaviour, vol. 316,
no. 8, 1991.
[28] A. Kokkinou, and D. A. Cranage, “Using self-service technology to reduce customer waiting times,” International
Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 33, pp. 435-445, Jun, 2013.
[29] J. I. Castillo-Manzano, and L. López-Valpuesta, “Check-in services and passenger behaviour: Self service
technologies in airport systems,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 2431-2437, Nov, 2013.
[30] S. Liu, “The impact of forced use on customer adoption of self-service technologies,” Computers in Human
Behavior, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 1194-1201, Jul, 2012.
[31] A. T. Hsieh, C. H. Yen, and K. C. Chin, “Participative customers as partial employees and service provider
workload,” International journal of service industry management, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 187-199, Apr, 2004.
[32] P. A. Dabholkar, “Consumer evaluations of new technology-based self-service options: an investigation of
alternative models of service quality,” International Journal of research in Marketing, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 29-51, Feb,
1996.
[33] R. J. Kauffman, and L. Lally, “A value platform analysis perspective on customer access information technology,”
Decision Sciences, vol. 25, no. 5‐6, pp. 767-794, Feb, 1994.
[34] M. J. Bitner, A. L. Ostrom, and M. L. Meuter, “Implementing successful self-service technologies,” The Academy
of Management Executive, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 96-108, Nov, 2002.
[35] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. L. Berry, “A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for
future research,” The Journal of Marketing, pp. 41-50, Oct, 1985.
[36] F. D. Davis, “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,” MIS
quarterly, pp. 319-340, Sep, 1989.
[37] A. Parasuraman, “Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new
technologies,” Journal of service research, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 307-320, May, 2000.
[38] P. Johnson, and D. Harris, Essential skills for management research, California, USA: Sage Publications, 2002.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 38 ►
[39] C. R. Hildreth, “Accounting for users' inflated assessments of on-line catalogue search performance and
usefulness: an experimental study,” Information research, vol. 6, no. 2, Jan, 2001.
[40] O. Tansey, “Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling,” Political Science &
Politics, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 765-772, 2007.
[41] M. Q. Patton, Qualitative evaluation and research methods, California, USA: Sage Publications, 1990.
[42] A. Fink, How to conduct surveys: a step-by-step guide, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications, 2013.
[43] J. E. Sale, L. H. Lohfeld, and K. Brazil, “Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-
methods research,” Quality and quantity, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 43-53, Feb, 2002.
[44] R. F. DeVellis, Scale development: Theory and applications. Los Angeles, US: Sage, 2012.
[45] P. Kline, The handbook of psychological testing, London, UK: Routledge, 2000.
[46] J. Neter, M. H. Kutner, C. J. Nachtsheim, and W. Wasserman, Applied linear statistical models. Chicago, UAS:
Irwin, 1996.
[47] J. Hillegersberg, and S. Koenen, “Adoption of web-based group decision support systems: experiences from the
field and future developments,” International journal of information systems and project management, vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
49-64, 2006.
[48] M. Wolfinbarger, and M. C. Gilly, “eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality,” Journal of
retailing, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 183-198, Dec, 2003.
[49] S. S. Zabukovsek, and S. Bobek, “TAM-based external factors related to ERP solutions acceptance in
organizations,” International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 25-38, 201.
The rise of the prosumer: an analysis of self -service technology adoption in a corporate context
International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2017, 25-39
◄ 39 ►
Biographical notes
Eoghan Considine
Eoghan Considine serves as a Senior Manager of Fidelity Labs Europe, a unit of Fidelity
Investments, the largest mutual fund company in the United States, the No. 1 provider of workplace
retirement savings plans and a leading online brokerage firm. Before joining Fidelity in 2007,
Eoghan worked in technology startups serving customers throughout Europe. Considine has a
passion for new and emerging technology, innovation and software development to incubating ideas
into business products. Considine has an MSc Technology Management from NUI Galway, Ireland
(2015), a HDip in Innovation Management from NUI Galway, Ireland (2013) and an undergraduate
in Computer Systems (1998) from University of Limerick, Ireland.
www.shortbio.net/[email protected]
Kathryn Cormican
Kathryn Cormican (Ph.D.) is a program director in the College of Engineering & Informatics at the
National University of Ireland Galway. Her research interests lie in the areas of technology
innovation and enterprise systems. Kathryn leads several applied research projects in this area. She
has published widely at international conferences and peer reviewed journals. Kathryn works closely
with many leading organizations and SMEs helping them to design, develop and deploy new
processes and systems.
www.shortbio.net/[email protected]
Top Related